Self-reported insulin pump prescribing practices in pediatric type 1 diabetes

Persistent disparities in insulin pump uptake despite a universal pump programme for type 1 diabetes in Ontario, Canada

AIM

To evaluate associations between social disadvantage and insulin pump use among adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the context of a universal publicly funded insulin pump programme in Ontario, Canada, and to ascertain whether social disparities in insulin pump programme enrolment have decreased over time.

METHODS

Population-based cross-sectional studies were conducted using administrative healthcare data in Ontario, Canada. First, among adults aged older than 18 years diagnosed with T1D before 31 March 2021, logistic regression was used to assess the association between neighbourhood social disadvantage (Ontario marginalization index quintiles) and insulin pump use. Second, among all paediatric and adult applicants to the insulin pump programme from 1 September 2006 to 31 March 2022, ordinal logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between year of insulin pump initiation and social disadvantage.

RESULTS

Among 27 453 adults with T1D, 60% used insulin pumps. Greater social disadvantage was associated with lower odds of insulin pump use (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.44 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.39-0.48] for greatest vs. lowest social disadvantage quintile). Among 21 002 paediatric and adult applicants to the insulin pump programme, social disparities in pump use decreased in the first 3 years of the programme, plateaued until 2020, then increased from 2020 to 2022, with no change in the odds of being in a higher social deprivation quintile for 2022 relative to 2007 (OR 1.09 [95% CI 0.83-1.44]).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a universal pump programme for individuals with T1D, disparities by social disadvantage persist. Residual financial and non-financial barriers must be addressed to promote equitable insulin pump uptake.

12-Month Real-Life Efficacy of the MiniMed 780G Advanced Closed-Loop System in Patients Living with Type 1 Diabetes: A French Observational, Retrospective, Multicentric Study

Aim: To evaluate the evolution of glycemic outcomes in patients living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) after 1 year of use of the MiniMed 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system. Methods: We conducted an observational, retrospective, multicentric study in 20 centers in France. The primary objective was to evaluate the improvement in glycemic control after 1-year use of AHCL. The primary endpoint was the variation of time in range (TIR) between pre-AHCL and after 1-year use of AHCL. Secondary objectives were to analyze the glycemic outcomes after 3, 6, and 12 months of AHCL use, the safety, and the long-term observance of AHCL. Results: Two hundred twenty patients were included, and 200 were analyzed for the primary endpoint. 92.7% of patients continued to use AHCL. After 1 year of use of AHCL, TIR was 72.5% ± 10.6% (+9.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI] [7.6-10.5] compared to pre-AHCL initiation, P < 0.001), HbA1c 7.1% ± 0.7% (-0.5%; 95% CI [-0.6 to -0.4]; P < 0.001), time below range 2.0% [1.0; 3.0] (0.0% [-2.0; 0.0], P < 0.001), and time above range 24.8% ± 10.9% (-7.3%; 95% CI [-8.8 to -5.7]; P < 0.001). More patients achieved the glycemic treatment goals of HbA1c <7.0% (45.1% vs. 18.1%, P < 0.001) and TIR >70% (59.0% vs. 29.5% P < 0.001) when compared with pre-AHCL. Five patients experienced severe hypoglycemia events and two patients experienced ketoacidosis. Conclusion: After 1 year of use of AHCL, people living with T1D safely improved their glucose control and a higher proportion of them achieved optimal glycemic control.

Hybrid Closed Loop Systems Improve Glycemic Control and Quality of Life in Historically Minoritized Youth with Diabetes

Background: We assessed changes in glycemic control and person-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology use among historically minoritized youth who are least likely to access hybrid closed loop (HCL) technology. Methods: This single-arm, prospective pilot study enrolled 15 publicly insured, insulin pump-naïve, non-Hispanic Black youth ages 6 to <21 years with type 1 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥10% in a 6-month study of HCL use. The primary outcome was absolute change in time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes included other continuous glucose monitor metrics, PROMs, and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) incidence. Results: For 13 youth (median 14.8 years, 53.3% female, HbA1c 11.7%) who completed the study, baseline TIR of 12.3% (6.3-27.1%) increased 23.7%-points (16.9, 30.5%; P < 0.001) or 5.7 h per day. Percent time >250 mg/dL decreased 33.9%-points (-44.8, -23.1%; P < 0.001) or 8.1 h per day from a baseline of 69.4% (51.6, 84.0%). Median time in HCL was 78.3% (59.7, 87.3%). Youth received 10.1 (9.2, 11.9) boluses per day, 71.7% (63.8, 79.3%) of which were HCL-initiated autoboluses. Diabetes-specific quality of life increased among parents (P < 0.001) and youth (P = 0.004), and diabetes distress decreased in both groups (P < 0.001, P = 0.005). Improvements in glycemia did not correlate with any baseline youth or parent PROMs. DKA was high at baseline (67 episodes/100-person years) and did not increase during the intervention (72 episodes/100-person years, P = 0.78). Conclusion: Improvements in glycemic control and quality of life exceeding pivotal trial findings without increased safety risks among historically minoritized youth emphasize the need for equitable access to HCL systems. ClinicalTrials.gov: clinicaltrials.gov ID (NCT04807374).

Addressing disparities in technology use among patients with type 1 diabetes: a review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The benefits of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and insulin pumps in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) are widely recognized. However, glaring disparities in access exist, particularly in marginalized and economically disadvantaged groups that stand to benefit significantly from diabetes technology use. We will review recent data describing drivers of these disparities and approaches to address the disparities.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several qualitative studies were published in recent years that have investigated the drivers of disparities reported over the past decades. These studies report that in addition to typical barriers seen in the diabetes technology, marginalized patients have unique challenges that make insulin pumps and CGMs less accessible.

SUMMARY

Barriers to technology use in these groups include stigmatization, lack of support, financial constraints, provider biases, stringent insurance policies, and clinic infrastructure. To address inequities, multifaceted strategies across community, healthcare, and provider sectors are essential. Key initiatives include enhancing public awareness, refining health policies, ensuring access to high-quality care, and emphasizing patient-centered approaches. The equitable use of technology can narrow the gap in T1D outcomes. The social and economic implications of suboptimal T1D management further underscore the urgency of these efforts for both improved health outcomes and cost-efficient care.

Socioeconomic status and diabetes technology use in youth with type 1 diabetes: a comparison of two funding models

Background

Technology use, including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin pump therapy, is associated with improved outcomes in youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). In 2017 CGM was universally funded for youth with T1D in Australia. In contrast, pump access is primarily accessed through private health insurance, self-funding or philanthropy. The study aim was to investigate the use of diabetes technology across different socioeconomic groups in Australian youth with T1D, in the setting of two contrasting funding models.

Methods

A cross-sectional evaluation of 4957 youth with T1D aged <18 years in the national registry was performed to determine technology use. The Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage (IRSD) derived from Australian census data is an area-based measure of socioeconomic status (SES). Lower quintiles represent greater disadvantage. IRSD based on most recent postcode of residence was used as a marker of SES. A multivariable generalised linear model adjusting for age, diabetes duration, sex, remoteness classification, and location within Australia was used to determine the association between SES and device use.

Results

CGM use was lower in IRSD quintile 1 in comparison to quintiles 2 to 5 (p<0.001) where uptake across the quintiles was similar. A higher percentage of pump use was observed in the least disadvantaged IRSD quintiles. Compared to the most disadvantaged quintile 1, pump use progressively increased by 16% (95% CI: 4% to 31%) in quintile 2, 19% (6% to 33%) in quintile 3, 35% (21% to 50%) in quintile 4 and 51% (36% to 67%) in the least disadvantaged quintile 5.

Conclusion

In this large national dataset, use of diabetes technologies was found to differ across socioeconomic groups. For nationally subsidised CGM, use was similar across socioeconomic groups with the exception of the most disadvantaged quintile, an important finding requiring further investigation into barriers to CGM use within a nationally subsidised model. User pays funding models for pump therapy result in lower use with socioeconomic disadvantage, highlighting inequities in this funding approach. For the full benefits of diabetes technology to be realised, equitable access to pump therapy needs to be a health policy priority.

A Retrospective Cohort Study of Racial/Ethnic and Socioeconomic Disparities in Initiation and Meaningful Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring among Youth With Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use improves type 1 diabetes (T1D) outcomes, yet children from diverse backgrounds and on public insurance have worse outcomes and lower CGM utilization. Using novel CGM data acquisition and analysis of two T1D cohorts, we test the hypothesis that T1D youth from different backgrounds experience disparities in meaningful CGM use following both T1D diagnosis and CGM uptake.

METHODS

Cohorts drawn from a pediatric T1D program were followed for one year beginning at diagnosis (n = 815, 2016-2020) or CGM uptake (n = 1392, 2015-2020). Using chart and CGM data, CGM start and meaningful use outcomes between racial/ethnic and insurance groups were compared using median days, one-year proportions, and survival analysis.

RESULTS

Publicly compared with privately insured were slower to start CGM (233, 151 days, P < .01), had fewer use-days in the year following uptake (232, 324, P < .001), and had faster first discontinuation rates (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.61, P < .001). Disparities were more pronounced among Hispanic and black compared with white subjects for CGM start time (312, 289, 149, P = .0013) and discontinuation rates (Hispanic HR = 2.17, P < .001; black HR = 1.45, P = .038), and remained even among privately insured (Hispanic/black HR = 1.44, P = .0286).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the impact of insurance and race/ethnicity on CGM initiation and use, it is imperative that we target interventions to support universal access and sustained CGM use to mitigate the potential impact of provider biases and systemic disadvantage and racism. By enabling more equitable and meaningful T1D technology use, such interventions will begin to alleviate outcome disparities between youth with T1D from different backgrounds.

Endocrine Health and Health Care Disparities in the Pediatric and Sexual and Gender Minority Populations: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement

Endocrine care of pediatric and adult patients continues to be plagued by health and health care disparities that are perpetuated by the basic structures of our health systems and research modalities, as well as policies that impact access to care and social determinants of health. This scientific statement expands the Society's 2012 statement by focusing on endocrine disease disparities in the pediatric population and sexual and gender minority populations. These include pediatric and adult lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual (LGBTQIA) persons. The writing group focused on highly prevalent conditions-growth disorders, puberty, metabolic bone disease, type 1 (T1D) and type 2 (T2D) diabetes mellitus, prediabetes, and obesity. Several important findings emerged. Compared with females and non-White children, non-Hispanic White males are more likely to come to medical attention for short stature. Racially and ethnically diverse populations and males are underrepresented in studies of pubertal development and attainment of peak bone mass, with current norms based on European populations. Like adults, racial and ethnic minority youth suffer a higher burden of disease from obesity, T1D and T2D, and have less access to diabetes treatment technologies and bariatric surgery. LGBTQIA youth and adults also face discrimination and multiple barriers to endocrine care due to pathologizing sexual orientation and gender identity, lack of culturally competent care providers, and policies. Multilevel interventions to address these disparities are required. Inclusion of racial, ethnic, and LGBTQIA populations in longitudinal life course studies is needed to assess growth, puberty, and attainment of peak bone mass. Growth and development charts may need to be adapted to non-European populations. In addition, extension of these studies will be required to understand the clinical and physiologic consequences of interventions to address abnormal development in these populations. Health policies should be recrafted to remove barriers in care for children with obesity and/or diabetes and for LGBTQIA children and adults to facilitate comprehensive access to care, therapeutics, and technological advances. Public health interventions encompassing collection of accurate demographic and social needs data, including the intersection of social determinants of health with health outcomes, and enactment of population health level interventions will be essential tools.

Mediating Effects of Technology-Based Therapy on the Relationship Between Socioeconomic Status and Glycemic Management in Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes

Background: Socioeconomic disparities exist related to accessibility and uptake of diabetes technologies that impact glycemic management. The aims of this study were to describe diabetes technology use (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII] and continuous glucose monitoring [CGM]) in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and assess the mediating effects of each technology on the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and glycemic management. Methods: Single-center retrospective cross-sectional study of children aged 0-18 years (n = 813) with T1D and valid postal codes between 2018 and 2020. Extracted data were linked to validated census-based material deprivation (MD) quintiles. Exposures included MD and technology use (CSII, CGM), whereas the primary outcome was glycemic management (HbA1c). Results: Of 813 patients included, 379 (46.6%) and 246 (30.3%) individuals used CGM and CSII, respectively. Real-time CGM (rtCGM) and CSII were associated with both MD and HbA1c, but intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) was not. There was a difference in HbA1c of +1.17% between patients from the most (Q5) and least deprived (Q1) MD quintile (P < 0.0001), and significant mediating effects for rtCGM and CSII use, but not isCGM. rtCGM use and CSII use accounted for 0.14% (P < 0.0001) and 0.25% (P < 0.0001) of the difference in HbA1c between patients from Q1 and Q5 quintiles (indirect effects), representing 12.0% and 23.1% of this difference, respectively. Conclusions: CSII and rtCGM use partially mediated the significant discrepancies observed with SES and glycemic management, highlighting potential benefits of broader access to these technologies to improve diabetes outcomes and help mitigate the negative impact of deprivation on diabetes management.

Racial Disparities in Technology Use in Children With Type 1 Diabetes: A Qualitative Content Analysis of Parents' Perspectives

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to describe differences in non-Hispanic Black (NHB) and non-Hispanic White (NHW) parents' perceptions of factors that influence the use of diabetes technology.

METHODS

Focus groups were conducted with parents of NHB and NHW children at a pediatric diabetes center in the Northeast United States. Kilbourne's health disparities framework informed the focus group guide and a priori coding for directed content analysis. Further analysis allowed subcategories to emerge inductively.

RESULTS

Twenty-one parents participated. Five subcategories emerged, describing differences in NHB and NHW parent decisions regarding diabetes technology: (1) child's choice, (2) shame versus pride, (3) pros and cons of technology, (4) time frame, and (5) blood glucose indications of readiness. NHB parents feared technology malfunction, worried that visible devices could worsen experienced stigma of diabetes diagnosis, and described the diabetes team as gatekeepers, who changed eligibility criteria for diabetes technology use for their research purposes. In contrast, NHW parents reported diabetes team expectation of diabetes technology use and did not report provider-related barriers.

CONCLUSION

This study adds to existing literature advancing our understanding of the patient and provider mechanisms underlying racial disparities in diabetes technology use. This understanding may guide development of interventions focused on patients, providers, and structural factors to improve equity in use of diabetes technology by youth with type 1 diabetes.

A Longitudinal View of Disparities in Insulin Pump Use Among Youth with Type 1 Diabetes: The SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study

Objective: To evaluate changes in insulin pump use over two decades in a national U.S. sample. Research Design and Methods: We used data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study to perform a serial cross-sectional analysis to evaluate changes in insulin pump use in participants <20 years old with type 1 diabetes by race/ethnicity and markers of socioeconomic status across four time periods between 2001 and 2019. Multivariable generalized estimating equations were used to assess insulin pump use. Temporal changes by subgroup were assessed through interactions. Results: Insulin pump use increased from 31.7% to 58.8%, but the disparities seen in pump use persisted and were unchanged across subgroups over time. Odds ratio for insulin pump use in Hispanic (0.57, confidence interval [95% CI] 0.45-0.73), Black (0.28, 95% CI 0.22-0.37), and Other race (0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.76) participants were significantly lower than White participants. Those with ≤high school degree (0.39, 95% CI 0.31-0.47) and some college (0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.79) had lower use compared to those with ≥bachelor's degree. Those with public insurance (0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.00) had lower use than those with private insurance. Those with an annual household income <$25K (0.43, 95% CI 0.35-0.53), $25K-$49K (0.52, 95% CI 0.43-0.63), and $50K-$74K (0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94) had lower use compared to those with income ≥$75,000. Conclusion: Over the past two decades, there was no improvement in the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequities in insulin pump use, despite an overall increase in use. Studies that evaluate barriers or test interventions to improve technology access are needed to address these persistent inequities.

Automated insulin delivery: benefits, challenges, and recommendations. A Consensus Report of the Joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association

A technological solution for the management of diabetes in people who require intensive insulin therapy has been sought for decades. The last 10 years have seen substantial growth in devices that can be integrated into clinical care. Driven by the availability of reliable systems for continuous glucose monitoring, we have entered an era in which insulin delivery through insulin pumps can be modulated based on sensor glucose data. Over the past few years, regulatory approval of the first automated insulin delivery (AID) systems has been granted, and these systems have been adopted into clinical care. Additionally, a community of people living with type 1 diabetes has created its own systems using a do-it-yourself approach by using products commercialised for independent use. With several AID systems in development, some of which are anticipated to be granted regulatory approval in the near future, the joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association has created this consensus report. We provide a review of the current landscape of AID systems, with a particular focus on their safety. We conclude with a series of recommended targeted actions. This is the fourth in a series of reports issued by this working group. The working group was jointly commissioned by the executives of both organisations to write the first statement on insulin pumps, which was published in 2015. The original authoring group was comprised by three nominated members of the American Diabetes Association and three nominated members of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Additional authors have been added to the group to increase diversity and range of expertise. Each organisation has provided a similar internal review process for each manuscript prior to submission for editorial review by the two journals. Harmonisation of editorial and substantial modifications has occurred at both levels. The members of the group have selected the subject of each statement and submitted the selection to both organisations for confirmation.

Racial Disparities in Access and Use of Diabetes Technology Among Adult Patients With Type 1 Diabetes in a U.S. Academic Medical Center

OBJECTIVE

Recent studies highlight racial disparities in insulin pump (PUMP) and continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). This study explored racial disparities in diabetes technology among adult patients with T1D.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a retrospective clinic-based cohort study of adult patients with T1D seen consecutively from April 2013 to January 2020. Race was categorized into non-Black (reference group) and Black. The primary outcomes were baseline and prevalent technology use, rates of diabetes technology discussions (CGMdiscn, PUMPdiscn), and prescribing (CGMrx, PUMPrx). Multivariable logistic regression analysis evaluated the association of technology discussions and prescribing with race, adjusting for social determinants of health and diabetes outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 1,258 adults with T1D, baseline technology use was significantly lower for Black compared with non-Black patients (7.9% vs. 30.3% for CGM; 18.7% vs. 49.6% for PUMP), as was prevalent use (43.6% vs. 72.1% for CGM; 30.7% vs. 64.2% for PUMP). Black patients had adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of 0.51 (95% CI 0.29, 0.90) for CGMdiscn and 0.61 (95% CI 0.41, 0.93) for CGMrx. Black patients had aORs of 0.74 (95% CI 0.44, 1.25) for PUMPdiscn and 0.40 (95% CI, 0.22, 0.70) for PUMPrx. Neighborhood context, insurance, marital and employment status, and number of clinic visits were also associated with the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant racial disparities were observed in discussions, prescribing, and use of diabetes technology. Further research is needed to identify the causes behind these disparities and develop and evaluate strategies to reduce them.

Automated Insulin Delivery: Benefits, Challenges, and Recommendations. A Consensus Report of the Joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association

A technological solution for the management of diabetes in people who require intensive insulin therapy has been sought for decades. The last 10 years have seen substantial growth in devices that can be integrated into clinical care. Driven by the availability of reliable systems for continuous glucose monitoring, we have entered an era in which insulin delivery through insulin pumps can be modulated based on sensor glucose data. Over the past few years, regulatory approval of the first automated insulin delivery (AID) systems has been granted, and these systems have been adopted into clinical care. Additionally, a community of people living with type 1 diabetes has created its own systems using a do-it-yourself approach by using products commercialized for independent use. With several AID systems in development, some of which are anticipated to be granted regulatory approval in the near future, the joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association has created this consensus report. We provide a review of the current landscape of AID systems, with a particular focus on their safety. We conclude with a series of recommended targeted actions. This is the fourth in a series of reports issued by this working group. The working group was jointly commissioned by the executives of both organizations to write the first statement on insulin pumps, which was published in 2015. The original authoring group was comprised by three nominated members of the American Diabetes Association and three nominated members of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Additional authors have been added to the group to increase diversity and range of expertise. Each organization has provided a similar internal review process for each manuscript prior to submission for editorial review by the two journals. Harmonization of editorial and substantial modifications has occurred at both levels. The members of the group have selected the subject of each statement and submitted the selection to both organizations for confirmation.

Real-World Evidence Supporting Tandem Control-IQ Hybrid Closed-Loop Success in the Medicare and Medicaid Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Populations

Background: The Tandem Control-IQ (CIQ) system has demonstrated significant glycemic improvements in large randomized controlled and real-world trials. Use of this system is lower in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) government-sponsored insurance and those with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of CIQ in these groups. Methods and Materials: A retrospective analysis of CIQ users was performed. Users age ≥6 years with a t:slim X2 Pump and >30 days of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data pre-CIQ and >30 days post-CIQ technology initiation were included. Results: A total of 4243 Medicare and 1332 Medicaid CIQ users were analyzed among whom 5075 had T1D and 500 had T2D. After starting CIQ, the Medicare beneficiaries group saw significant improvement in time in target range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR; 64% vs. 74%; P < 0.0001), glucose management index (GMI; 7.3% vs. 7.0%; P < 0.0001), and the percentage of users meeting American Diabetes Association (ADA) CGM Glucometrics Guidelines (12.8% vs. 26.3%; P < 0.0001). The Medicaid group also saw significant improvement in TIR (46% vs. 60%; P < 0.0001), GMI (7.9% vs. 7.5%; P < 0.0001), and percentage meeting ADA guidelines (5.7% vs. 13.4%; P < 0.0001). Patients with T2D and either insurance saw significant glycemic improvements. Conclusions: The CIQ system was effective in the Medicare and Medicaid groups in improving glycemic control. The T2D subgroup also demonstrated improved glycemic control with CIQ use. Glucometrics achieved in this analysis are comparable with those seen in previous randomized controlled clinical trials with the CIQ system.

Efficacy and Safety of Tandem Control IQ Without User-Initiated Boluses in Adults with Uncontrolled Type 1 Diabetes

Background: Adults with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes (T1D) who are missing meal boluses are typically excluded from clinical trials of diabetes technologies. We investigated the long-term real-life outcomes of the Tandem Control IQ automated insulin delivery (AID) system in adults with T1D who are missing meal boluses. Methods: In this single-center study with 30 adults with T1D, we evaluated efficacy (A1c and time in target range [TIR]) and safety (time below range [TBR]) in adults with T1D who initiated Tandem Control IQ with minimal or no user-initiated boluses (auto >90%) compared with age, gender, and diabetes duration matched adults with T1D with intermediate (auto 50%-90%) and high bolusing behaviors (auto 10%-49%). Results: Regardless of engagement with Control IQ system, there were significant improvements in A1c and TIR in all three groups over 3, 6, and 12 months. Compared with baseline, there was significant decrease in A1c by 1.6% ± 0.8% and increase in TIR by 19.3% ± 6.4% (P < 0.001 for both) over 12 months of Tandem Control IQ use in auto >90% use group without increasing TBR. Conclusions: Tandem Control IQ is effective in lowering A1c and improving TIR without increasing TBR regardless of users' engagement with the system. Therefore, adults with T1D with high A1c who are mostly missing meal boluses should not be considered as inappropriate candidates for Control IQ AID system.

Advanced Diabetes Technology Remains Underutilized in Underserved Populations: Early Hybrid Closed-Loop System Experience at an Academic Safety Net Hospital

We retrospectively evaluated outcomes of the Minimed Medtronic 670G system in an academic urban safety-net population of adults with type 1 diabetes, between September 2016 and January 2020. Among 32 patients prescribed the 670G, the majority were female (69%), white (69%), achieved advanced degrees (56%), were commercially insured (94%), and were experienced pump users (84%). Patients who initiated auto-mode demonstrated significant improvement in A1c after 1 year. However, 31% of patients never initiated auto-mode. Black and Hispanic patients comprised 50% of this group, despite similar insurance coverage, diabetes duration, educational level, and prior pump use. Hence, traditional barriers to technology use do not explain these racial/ethnic disparities. Of 22 patients who initiated auto-mode, 5 discontinued within 1 year. The most common reason for discontinuation was frustration with pump-sensor interactions. Future studies identifying barriers to and strategies for increasing use of advanced insulin delivery systems in underserved populations are needed.